Obama's failures are not only domestic. Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, wrote a fantastic piece published at Financial Times, US must recall it is not just any country.
The list of US foreign policy challenges is long and there will be a temptation to respond tactically to each one. But today’s headlines and posterity’s judgment often differ. The task at hand is to strengthen the pillars of our influence and act with the long arc of history in mind.Then she details, working her way both regionally and specifically across the globe, as to how this can be done. In short, Obama has not been taking the long view, not that Condi addressed Obama's policies by attacking him personally, but rather focused on the ineffectiveness of his policies in solving any long or short term problems. She talks about how protecting America's interests (promoting and supporting democracies) benefits people the world over.
She would be a terrific choice for VP, in my opinion.
Back to Obama: Rush Limbaugh has said off and on that "I hope he fails." What he means, as he has often explained, is that he hoped that Obama would not be successful at transforming the United States of America into something less than its best. Obama has not failed. We now have a weakened place internationally, a shrinking military, a skyrocketing deficit (approaching $16T, with soon to be $6T all on Obama's head), expanded government programs (including the addition of Obamacare) with less to pay for them, a shrinking economy, a bad housing market, bad retail market, bad energy policy, bad jobs market. These struggling markets are the product of a government too big to sustain. Obama can't seem to get on top with numbers, because he's not supporting policies that would produce improvement of these numbers.
What Rush Limbaugh suspected from the get-go in 2008 is that Obama never wanted to improve these numbers at all. On the contrary, he wanted to increase dependence on the government. He wants to buy support with handouts. He increases the scope and power of the government over the people in governs. He wants the majority of Americans to look at government as the solution or the answer to all their problems. Dependency. The opposite of personal freedom.
The problem is in the paradigm. Government can't really solve problems directly except by stepping out the way to let the free market work, but politicians (especially those of a liberal bent) want to convince voters otherwise. I'm not sure whether politicians (including Obama) actually believe big government works themselves, since they might just be in it for the personal power and money. I saw somewhere that some government program spent over $70k per minimum-wage job. Typical. These are the same people that spent over $200k per "stimulus" job of some kind. Too much bureaucracy and too little efficiency. There is no motive for accountability or economy when using taxpayer dollars rather than a business, which uses dollars wisely to get the biggest possible returns. The free market knows the value of a dollar and will get as much good out of it as it possibly can, while the government knows how to waste our money unlimitedly, and waste our grandkids' money while they're at it; simultaneously shrinking opportunities for Americans at home and abroad.